I think Trump won, because of several reasons. One is that he said so many outrageous things, such that the media covered him so extensively that he basically got massive media cover for free. So much attention (even bad attention) to one person turns out to be good for popularity. I Don't think political correctness can get someone into office.

I like this video that investigates the reasons why people support Trump on a subconscious level.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Yes, the Donald won for many reasons, but I would argue it had far more to do with voter apathy than anything else. As I have pointed out before, the two major parties ran the most disliked candidates in history, leading to low voter turnout (especially compared to the number of people that actually registered).

Sadly, it appears neither of the two major parties are talking about what it would take to get those ~70 million registered voters to actually turn up and vote. There truly is an un-tap source of influence there that the two major parties are just overlooking. I honestly do not understand this. Hopefully, a third party will be able to tap into it.

Not the entire reason. I think its more to do with the fallout from the banking crisis. People are angry at the lowering of living standards while the elite seem to have got away with it. Trump appeared to want to eliminate corruption and people lapped it up.

There probably also was a sense that he was willing to speak his mind regardless of political correctness. That does appeal to some people. But I don't think it is the sole reason that he won.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Sadly, it appears neither of the two major parties are talking about what it would take to get those ~70 million registered voters to actually turn up and vote. There truly is an un-tap source of influence there that the two major parties are just overlooking. I honestly do not understand this. Hopefully, a third party will be able to tap into it.

There will never be a third party (except during transitional periods) until we get rid of first past the post voting. With our voting system two parties is a very stable equilibrium and three is completely unstable.

Laurens wrote:Not the entire reason. I think its more to do with the fallout from the banking crisis. People are angry at the lowering of living standards while the elite seem to have got away with it. Trump appeared to want to eliminate corruption and people lapped it up.

I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Sadly, it appears neither of the two major parties are talking about what it would take to get those ~70 million registered voters to actually turn up and vote. There truly is an un-tap source of influence there that the two major parties are just overlooking. I honestly do not understand this. Hopefully, a third party will be able to tap into it.

There will never be a third party (except during transitional periods) until we get rid of first past the post voting. With our voting system two parties is a very stable equilibrium and three is completely unstable.

Laurens wrote:Not the entire reason. I think its more to do with the fallout from the banking crisis. People are angry at the lowering of living standards while the elite seem to have got away with it. Trump appeared to want to eliminate corruption and people lapped it up.

I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).

Well I'll be damned...

Hi borr!

With regards to political correctness, I think it's part of a larger issue (basically social liberalism) that many people, especially in rural areas, have problems with.

borrofburi wrote:I never got any sense that Trump was anti-corruption. If anything, I got the sense that he is very into cronyism which is a particular type of corruption (and therefore Trump is pro-corruption-that-benefits-him).

I never got the sense he actually ever meant what he said, but there was the whole "drain the swamp" thing...

thenexttodie wrote:I think one reason why Trump won is because of the increasingly wierd social policies of the lefties and their bizarre demostrations/riots.

I think that was a part of it. I think... I'd say it was a small part of the reasons people had for voting for him, but it's probably a large part of the "PR" he got, and the Right as a whole.

But I gotta say... the weird and bizarre things... that's not really a great reason to vote against something, is it?I mean, especially when Trump is your other option. In my view, he's beyond weird/bizarre. He's well into disgusting and grotesque territory.

And no, this isn't just the whining of some bleeding heart lefty who really supported Hillary because she was just.. so great! This is someone who's first of all not in the US, and someone who hated Trump and everything he stood for even before he ran.

thenexttodie wrote:I think one reason why Trump won is because of the increasingly wierd social policies of the lefties and their bizarre demostrations/riots.

Trump ran on a populist message that the American people like, yet essentially lied to their face as he has demonstrably filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. I think the identity politics that everyone seems to circle jerk themselves off to on YouTube is just the current outrage fad until something else comes along.

Combine that with lack of voter turnout/voter apathy and you've got a winning formula for our first Orange president. I'm just struggling to find out why the few supporters that still support Trump keep defending his terrible policies.

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

Dustnite wrote:Trump ran on a populist message that the American people like, yet essentially lied to their face as he has demonstrably filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. I think the identity politics that everyone seems to circle jerk themselves off to on YouTube is just the current outrage fad until something else comes along.

Combine that with lack of voter turnout/voter apathy and you've got a winning formula for our first Orange president. I'm just struggling to find out why the few supporters that still support Trump keep defending his terrible policies.

Trumps cabinet is filled with Wall Street insiders? Is that even true? I doubt it.

Anyway, like i said, the social policies of the Left have become so increasingly bizzar it should be no wonder why they lost the election. Having a Minority Leader who is unable to put 2 coherent sentences together does not help them either.

The inherent corruption of our judical system, has also been made more know to the public.. So I think people were probably turned off from voting for someone was just another lawyer (Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton).

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

thenexttodie wrote:Trumps cabinet is filled with Wall Street insiders? Is that even true? I doubt it.

Hmm, then why not check it? Why just dismiss it? I mean, at least you're admitting to not knowing it first. I guess most people in your position would just deny it. But it's on public record, so it's easy to check.

I just checked, really quickly. Just googled "Trump's cabinet" and got a Wiki page of it.

While "Wall Street insider" may be difficult to properly define or prove, all the people he has are either established politicians, or high-ranking business people.

thenexttodie wrote:Anyway, like i said, the social policies of the Left have become so increasingly bizzar it should be no wonder why they lost the election. Having a Minority Leader who is unable to put 2 coherent sentences together does not help them either.

I'll reiterate my question from earlier: are "bizarre social policies" really a "worthy" issue to vote against someone? Is that really the highest priority for most of Trump's voters, you think?

Again, I'll recommend the article I linked to further up. It does go a little into the area of bizarre social policies, but it's certainly not the only or main issue.

Oh, and the thing about the minority leader who isn't able to string two coherent sentences together... Do you really think that was any kind of issue? Especially considering Trump's, uh, level of eloquence?

thenexttodie wrote:The inherent corruption of our judical system, has also been made more know to the public.. So I think people were probably turned off from voting for someone was just another lawyer (Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton).

[/quote]

I would fully agree with this one if it wasn't for the fact that instead of these corrupt politicians/lawyers, people instead opted for an obviously shady, amoral, unhinged billionaire bully.

Welp, that election truly was between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice.

thenexttodie wrote:Trumps cabinet is filled with Wall Street insiders? Is that even true? I doubt it.

Hmm, then why not check it? Why just dismiss it? I mean, at least you're admitting to not knowing it first. I guess most people in your position would just deny it. But it's on public record, so it's easy to check.

While "Wall Street insider" may be difficult to properly define or prove, all the people he has are either established politicians, or high-ranking business people.

Well I just checked to and and out of his 20 or so cabinet members, I see about 2 who could be called an "Insider". One of them of course is the Secratary of Treasure.

I know Trump spoke alot about Not letting Wall Streeters get away with murder. I dont think ever promised that he never allow anyone who has Wall Street experience to be a cabinet member.

thenexttodie wrote:Anyway, like i said, the social policies of the Left have become so increasingly bizzar it should be no wonder why they lost the election. Having a Minority Leader who is unable to put 2 coherent sentences together does not help them either.

Gnug215 wrote:I'll reiterate my question from earlier: are "bizarre social policies" really a "worthy" issue to vote against someone? Is that really the highest priority for most of Trump's voters, you think?

Again, I'll recommend the article I linked to further up. It does go a little into the area of bizarre social policies, but it's certainly not the only or main issue.

Oh, and the thing about the minority leader who isn't able to string two coherent sentences together... Do you really think that was any kind of issue? Especially considering Trump's, uh, level of eloquence?

I just read the article (read the first half and skimmed through the rest) . Very enjoyable and I think some interesting points were made. But I disagree that the election had anything to do with country folk hating city folk. Or simple farmers vs city elites.

Yes, i think social policy is one of the most important and decisive factors in any election. I am not sure how you could believe otherwise. Maybe I should have used the term "domestic policy" instead of social. But when it comes down to it, they are both the same thing.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Gnug215 wrote:Hmm, then why not check it? Why just dismiss it? I mean, at least you're admitting to not knowing it first. I guess most people in your position would just deny it. But it's on public record, so it's easy to check.

I just checked, really quickly. Just googled "Trump's cabinet" and got a Wiki page of it.

While "Wall Street insider" may be difficult to properly define or prove, all the people he has are either established politicians, or high-ranking business people.

Well I just checked to and and out of his 20 or so cabinet members, I see about 2 who could be called an "Insider". One of them of course is the Secratary of Treasure.

I know Trump spoke alot about Not letting Wall Streeters get away with murder. I dont think ever promised that he never allow anyone who has Wall Street experience to be a cabinet member.

Well sure, "filled" was certainly hyperbole if you take it on face value. I saw 4 of 20 who were from the business world. (Then 1 general, 1 neurosurgeon and 14 "politicians".)

So he let some in. But I'd say more importantly, he most certainly didn't drain the swamp. Or.. well, maybe he drained one and setup another.

thenexttodie wrote:I just read the article (read the first half and skimmed through the rest) . Very enjoyable and I think some interesting points were made. But I disagree that the election had anything to do with country folk hating city folk. Or simple farmers vs city elites.

Yes, i think social policy is one of the most important and decisive factors in any election. I am not sure how you could believe otherwise. Maybe I should have used the term "domestic policy" instead of social. But when it comes down to it, they are both the same thing.

Well the country certainly seems pretty divided down urban/rural lines. I don't think it's about country folk downright hating city folk, but they do live in different worlds.

My take on Trump's victory is a mixed bag of reasons.

For one, you had people who would always vote Republican, no matter what.

Second, the voter turnout on the Democrats seemed low - for various reasons. Among other the "Bernie Betrayal" and "Hillary Fatigue". But I bet a few also thought the election was in the bag, so they didn't bother.

Third, I think quite a few people voted for Trump in order to... "stick it to the man" or the like. They wanted change, disruption, and yeah, to drain the swamp.

Fourth, the segment of people who have been bleeding jobs. Mainly manufacturing jobs, unskilled, miners, etc. This group seems to have been convinced that primarily immigrants were their boogyman, but also that Trump would actually get all their jobs back - which he obviously won't be, since for one, there's limits to how much effort Trump would really want to put into that, and second: most of those jobs disappeared for good reason, and they're never coming back. This segment would include many of the "country folk", who would have seen their home regions in decline, while they saw cities having pretty much all the growth.

Fifth, some (mainly younger white males) probably shifted from Dems to Reps over social policies, as some kind of reaction to, yes, Political Correctness, but also stuff like feminism, LGBT rights. While this group may not have been large, I think this group would have been disproportionally vocal and impactful, in particular online, giving rise to a kind of "troll culture" that favored a candidate like Trump. I actually doubt this group has any particularly deep sense of loyalism towards Trump, realising what a moron he really is, but seeing him as a... if not "useful moron", then at least an "entertaining moron".